GarthP2000

Speaking for myself, I have indeed have had 2nd thoughts about my path. 2nd, 3rd, 4th, et al. To a lot of us who walked away, for one reason or another, we have indeed had many doubts, fears, wonderings about "What if I'm wrong, and/or God *smites* me" or some other such thoughts that we all had to deal with, and much of those based on such fear-based motivations that has been drilled into us since day one, in one form or another, when we were in 'the flock'. And again, speaking for myself, I have come to the conclusion that such fear-based guilt tripping and mental intimidations finally wound up helping me arrive at my now-present conclusion. Then again YMMV.

I do like the improvements and added features tho. More toys to be creative with. :dance: In accordance with the festive 'skin', Have a Happy New Year all! P.S., cuz Sudo wants things 1957:

George, And when all that song-and-dance fails, there is the good ol', tried n' true guilt tripping, scare tactics! Ie., "Who are you to question God!? ... Keep this up, and you'll have to answer to God Himself!" and so forth and so on, ad nauseum. BTW, *great* board upgrade, Paw! :B) Now I can be even more creative with my posts.

One point I would like for either Sunesis or Cynic to make clear to all of us here (including lil ol' apostate me). You mean to tell us that once one believes in Christ, actually believes mind you, one *cannot* and *will not* turn away from that belief? That once they are (supposedly) 'born again' (or to use Cynic's term 'regenerate'), one cannot change their minds and no longer believe? I know for a fact that I, at one time, did indeed believe in the Christian faith, and have come to 'fall away' as it were; ie., I walked away and no longer accept this belief system. Now either of you might think you know that I could not have truly believed, but I know otherwise. What can I do to prove it here? Not much I daresay, except my witness here. You just have to make up your minds on whether or not to accept what I say (and know) about myself. Ya know, one reason why I think some folks have this "You cannot turn away if you truly believe, and you never really believe if you do turn away" mentality, is this deep seated (and fear driven) denial that someone can actually do something on their own w/o God controlling it or without His say so. Ie., there is an incident where God is not _totally_ in control of a person's decision and actions, and that pi**es some people off, or even scares them. Ie., Gotta have God in total control of everything in order for some people to feel secure about life, ... even if it means turning us all into mindless automatons as a result. Well, I see *no* security in that, thank you very much. <_<

Socks, That's what I thought also. Only thing we need now are banjos. Dmiller, if you'll do the honors?

Raf, My post wasn't a rebuttal/retort of any of your posts in any way, but an illustrational example expanding and agreeing of what you said thus: "Agreed, it's not the whole story. "The Titanic struck an iceberg on its maiden voyage and sank to the bottom of the Atlantic in April 1912" isn't the whole story either, but it still tells you quite a bit." Hope this clears that up.

... and the prophetic words spoken at that time were: "Oh yes sir, the ship will sink!" Hmmmm, musta been a true prophet, as what he said came to pass. :blink:

Evan, you're getting slow at this. Why am I demanding proof? Or logical validation? Because the concept of faith excludes it as a means of determining whether something 'spiritual' is true. That's why its referred to as 'faith', ie., "take it on faith, brother". See? Examples of the appeal to obedience? Look throughout the entire bible, pal. Starting with the Adam and Eve example, they lost paradise (and the whole of humanity was 'lost' due to this) because they disobeyed God. As it is spelled out in Romans. "Due to one man's disobedience, many were made sinners, ..." etc. And the trail of examples goes from there. And obedience is compelled via these examples. ... But you already know this, don't you? Open questioning, scrutiny, analysis, and dissent breaks away from this appeal to obedience. That was one of the things that marked the Enlightenment period and the times following, and one of the things that church leaders and religious believers had to face and deal with. Anything else?

Really? What else do you call Young Earth Creationism, presuppositionalism, and "we walk by faith, not by sight" based concepts? And these are but a small set of examples I can show you of what I'm talking about. Not to mention that when someone demands proof that somebody's gospel is real and viable, they often get written off (and often derided) as unbelievers, kinda like TWI writes off those who grew a brain and walked away from their song-and-dance. The very concept of faith demands that you believe first (and that is many times based on an appeal to obedience), then (maybe, ... if ever) you see. At least that was what I heard in the various churches I been to and many believers that I have talked to, many of which are quite orthodox. And if you don't see, and especially if you make that part known to the believers, you're told a whole bunch of excuses/accusations of "who are you to question God!"/"its one of those spiritual things you cannot understand"/yadayada in order to take the attention away from the discrepancy that was brought to their attention, ... and hopefully to shut the dissenter up. No doubt that a lot of churches have different varieties of this crap, and there are even churches that aren't so much into this, and even focus more on helping people as more or less the mainstay of their gospel (Good for them). But when it comes down to the final answer, it still comes down to "have faith in what God says (ie., what we teach), despite what the evidence says otherwise, and if you don't, you are going to answer to God", and that kind of religion usually doesn't give a nice, rosy result as what happens to the critic/heretic/blasphemer/infidel. In Lewis Black's video, he utters this line of "I would love to have the faith ..., but I have thoughts. And that can really f*** up the faith thing. Just ask any Catholic priest." Classic Lewis Black, just classic! And I think that line has merit (w/o the Catholic priest part, of course ). There are many of us who 'have thoughts' (as I am sure you do too), and a good number of us have those that go beyond the boundaries that faith sets up and determines. Many religious people will not go beyond, or go very far beyond, those boundaries. I used to be one of those people. They're kinda like the Samwise Gangee character (in the Lord of the Rings flick) who gets to "the farthest I have ever gone from the Shire" (remember that scene?) and are afraid to go any farther. Well, I have walked well past that point, so to speak, ... and haven't looked back. And the answer that I originally referred to is still yet to be given. <_<

Religions (especially the Abrahamic based ones of Judaism, Christianity, Islam) can't answer: Why they can't prove that their deity is consistently real, or that their 'spiritual things' can't be viably proven, ... and yet they expect their beliefs to be accepted, sometimes on nothing more than faith, and even w/o question, as if it is the most important thing in the world to do, and if the follower does not, then he/she is committing a grave immoral act.

"Santa got run over by his reindeer, walking to my house Christmas Eve, you may say there's no such thing as Santa, but as for me and grandpa, we believe."

Looks like John Lynn's sales pitch now goes from "Buy my book!" to "Buy my package!" Whatta ministry! <_<

((spits)) What a great SALES PITCH! Interesting that NOWHERE does he stand up for Elizabeth, not then, and still not now. Sad, John Lynn, very sad, spineless, and gutless. Yet you are still on your 'Want to find out more, buy my book' spiel. Like I said, what a great sales pitch. ..... And this is the best your god expects you to do?? Pathetic! "my heart is weeping ....." at this I'd like to give him the ol' Bugs Bunny routine: "Ahhhhhhhhh .... Shadduuupppppp!"

Excellent point Crispy! As a matter of fact, it's interesting how many people use the 'cult' term in this manner. As tho' mainstream religions don't carry out this kind of activity. Ie., this is a 'cult' thing. <_< Yeah! Right! Bingo! ... Yet, you never hear anybody accuse them of being a 'cult'.

Miracle Whip -- a Commie plot hatched by Hillary Clinton!

And what would a Christmas polar bear be without his Coke? :)

Billy D, Taken by itself, I can see where you have a point in your post about certain people 'not working a day in their lives'. But look at the overall picture here. Even given that they do 'work a day in their lives', the folks who are in the decision making process and leadership at CES are indeed hurting people with what they are doing, and this hurting has gone back as much as 10+ years, chief (And this does include the three original principals). And no doubt there has also been good work mixed in. Guess what? This same thing has happened in TWI as well, as there were a lot of people helping others in that organization. But the overall direction of that system was turning more and more toxic, as MANY people will testify here. ... Such as it is becoming with CES more and more. And this is despite the claim that they 'are working for the Lord Jesus'. That claim by itself is worth no more than a $2.00 whore, ... with AIDS! Hell, you can have an ethical atheist that run rings around the CES leadership when it comes to doing good for people. And you make an unsubstantiated claim yourself with your earlier snide comment about Elizabeth not being so innocent herself, ... as you give no info as to why that is (supposedly) the case. I wonder what she would say to that! And you're damn right I have a rather hostile attitude regarding religious groups like this. They are a bane upon the human race, doing their controlling and abusive crap in the Name of Gawd. (That is but one reason why I walked away from faith based *cough* 'reasoning') And I have determined that I will not treat groups like that with respect nor kid gloves. ... Ie., I call 'em as I sees 'em. You and your wife might be a nice people, wanting to help others. Okay, I'll grant you that. Other individuals in CES most likely are likewise. ... But the organization itself is as I referred to before, ... a ship that is sinking. And rightfully deserves to.

'Administrative crisis' my a**! Emphasis mine.Precisely!! Been there, done that, burnt the T-shirt. Never again!

More straw man fluff to whitewash your 'Men of God's reputations ehh, Billy D? What about all the rest of the documented accusations/information that has been laid at their feet, hmmm? Your good ship CES/STFI is sinking. ... You might want to seriously think about how good you can swim. <_<

I, for one, hope that the ruling is NOT overturned. Groucho, have you even looked at what you typed? :unsure: ------------------------------------- "The judge doesn't like the fact that this group is recruiting?" Uhh yeah! I mean, what are they recruiting them to? Answer: their religion! "The idea of a Christian ministry converting the sinner and getting them to join the church, is one of the defining elements of Christianity." And have you ever looked at the percentage of prisoners who are already of the Christian persuasion? A helluva lot higher than atheists, I'll tell you that right now. "Would this judge also accuse Billy Graham of "recruiting" with his ministry?" A-yup "We hold prisoners in jail cells...therefore we have a responsibilty to feed them, clothe them and provide the basic necessities of life...I believe that this should include the right to religious worship." They already have the right to religious worship. What the government should not do is provide the religion/worship itself. "Religion in a tax supported institution?...Sure, why not?...as long as there is equal access to all religions" Ahhh no, that was what the founding fathers were trying to avoid. Religion should NOT be tax or government supported. That's part of the whole idea of what our founding fathers were trying to achieve. "...hey, these guys are a "captive audience". You can't send them out to attend the church of their choice...let the church come to them. " See above. "The judge has no business defining what religions are valid religions." This is about the only thing I agree with you here. -------------------------------------- Zshot, "Which has a better success rate, "faith based" groups or "secular groups"? The answer to that question should be the direction of where tax dollars go." That misses the whole point of separation of church and state. Ie., it isn't nor ever shall be the governments business what religious practices its citizens take part in, ... including incarcerated ones.

Dot, Yeah! And what a bunch of fruitcakes we're inspecting.

Wow! He actually dances!

Cman, Actually, I posed that question to Oldies, ..... who evidently looks like he's going to have a *very* Drambruie Christmas.

That Drambuie wouldn't happen to have any influence on your statement about John S. sincerely trying to learn from past mistakes, ..... would it?